Numbers Just Aren't There To Continue With Internal Combusti

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:50:48 -0600, "John J" <nhoj@droffats.ten> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:re27m4pe6ddjt8mmcrq35l2oeqddcmffum@4ax.com...
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgfurg@yahoo.com
wrote:


Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.

Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.

The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

"I think there is a world market for about five computers" IBM Chairman,
1958

But those five were profitable, so they built them.

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:11:40 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
lcargill@cfl.rr.com says...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John


The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)
It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

But gasoline still wins.

John

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gk09dt1abs@news2.newsguy.com...

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:01:18 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a
few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs about
60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure that can
be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.


Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..


Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.


Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies must
be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will be.

Yup. You place a large excise tax on oil and redistribute the proceeds
as a an egalitarian citizen's dividend or a bottom weighted quarterly
"stimulus" like the one we had in 2008. You let the market decide what
technologies and innovations are best within this macro level tax and
stimulus operation.

Agreed. Apart from pushing consumers to take it easy with fuel usage, the benefit for the nation is enormous.

Even a moderate $1/gallon (oil) tax increase would bring in in excess of $300 billion annually.
That money can be used very well for economic stimulus and energy efficiency improvements and/or reduction of the insane debt that
we have put on our shoulders over the past 8 years of uncontrolled spending and financial deregulation.

Since this tax will cause a continuation of the recent trend in America to be a bit more conservative with fuel usage, it would keep
consumption in check, and thus help to keep the price of oil down as well as our oil imports, which means we won't be paying the
Middle East as much either. Which means we won't need to borrow as much from the Chineese either.
If consumption can be kept in check with this, then gasoline will still be less than $3/gallon even with a $1 gas tax increase.
Besides that, it will increase innovation for fuel-efficient vehicles, by market force alone (since people will value fuel economy),
which structurally sets us up better protected when the real effects of Peak Oil will hit.

Can people see further ahead than today's oil addiction ? People can !

And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they
have much higher taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they are doing just fine (in many ways better)
with their standard of living.

Rob

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[rc]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:47:22 -0800 (PST), patmpowers@gmail.com wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:55 am, rc <rebelcm...@ftfreedom.org> wrote:



Perhaps you have never shopped for cars or trucks. It is very easy to
manipulate choices by varying features---if a company wants you to
*not* buy a smaller vehicle, they will simply make it with fewer
amenities and of poorer quality.

Poorer quality? Really? Please provide an example.



Sure. Chevy Chevette. There are documents that showed that Detroit
put its worst engineers to work on it to discourage sales of economy
cars.

Chevette? Wow, I thought we were discussing current models. I guess
some people have an axe to grind. Okay, let's be real!

The Japanese car companies got into the US with economy cars.

aka cheap crap!

Once
Japan became established in the market economy cars

aka cheap crap!

were no longer
offered. So they didn't offer a lower quality option: they didn't
offer the option at all. An even more effective strategy.

Ah! But the US companies had new imported cheap crap cars to compete
with after the Japanese.

"The Chevette essentially replaced the Vega as Chevrolet's
import-fighting small car. The Chevette was functional and
inexpensive. It was the best-selling small car in America for the 1979
and 1980 model years. However, it lacked the technological advances
bestowed on the Vega such as an aluminum engine, and it was based on
the dated rear-wheel drive layout which dropped rapidly out of favor
with the acceptance of the Volkswagen Rabbit.

The front-wheel drive Chevrolet Cavalier was launched upscale from the
Chevette for the 1982 model year. The Chevette continued through the
1987 model year, when a version was offered at US $4,995 to compete
with the Hyundai Excel and Yugo GV."


Get Real People!!!


<snip>

 

[Rob Dekker]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:4kh7m45l4nu46at037h0e0jgvd31kgct67@4ax.com...

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:11:40 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz> wrote:

In article <4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
lcargill@cfl.rr.com says...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John


The only problem is the distribution network.

You forgot the container.

I see LNG powered cars and busses around here all the time (near the
Civic Center, so there are lots of demo technologies rolling around.)

You probably mean CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) rather than LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
CNG is used fairly widely here in California, mostly for public transportation.

It's probably more expensive than using gasoline, but it is practical,
unlike hydrogen or supercaps or fuel cells or similar nonsense.

Agreed. But there are also hybrids. As you know, San Francisco MUNI just turned to diesel-hybrids for their busses.
I actually wonder if that was such a good idea, as SF still has a great net of electric trolley bus wires. And these are by far the
most energy efficient, and cleanest (if not also very comfortable) of any city bus system.

I like butane/propane as a vehicle fuel. They burn very clean (100K
miles between oil changes) and store nicely under moderate pressure.

What's the efficiency for butane/propane in an ICE ?

But gasoline still wins.

Depends on what you optimize for.

John

 

[John J]

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the standard
of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have much higher
taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per capita), and they
are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their standard of living.

Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:58:42 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural
gas fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60%
efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned
so a few points increase is a farce when compared to the
impending 1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification
of major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree
to go completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen
is to stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on
nat gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs
about 60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure
that can be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60%
figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap.
No doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already
in ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of
technologies must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel
price. It's the only way to inform people of what they right
decision will be.

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000
lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure
is small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important
as the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by
batteries or road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas
then the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be
insanely profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the price by
summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if 2000 gal/acre.
That claim of 2000 gal/acre is less than half the current projected yield
of competent boireactors. So if we go with your 1000% claim then I want
very much to "invest" in bioreactors surrounding the Sea of Cortes

And this does not require a total destruction of the American way of
life or the centralized big brother crap associated with everything
needed for the electric car.  I am all for hybrids as a way to move
toward nuclear power.  But make no mistake.  That is where you are
going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.

But from whence does this energy come? I am talking about the energy
that must get put INTO the grid (if cars are electric). I am not
suggesting that algae be used for that at all. That would be stone cold
stupid. But I do not see the really big problem as the batteries. I see
it as the amount of power that must be supplied by the grid and ask where
the hell that power will come from.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

This topic is going to get you into nothing but serious trouble with
the fossil fuel Mafia cabals and cartels.

I'll jerk a political knot into their fanny that just won't quit.

Don't forget about green/renewable energy that's making affordable H2
and h2o2,

Electrification is "shovel ready."

not to mention helping to create nifty synfuels (including
out of CO2).  There's also thorium reactors that'll give us clean and
failsafe energy at 10% the birth-to-grave cost of conventional nuclear
energy.

Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

On Jan 5, 8:42 pm, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:





John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.

Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.

I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

It's a few percent better than liquid fuels and that's only if you can
keep all releases in the entire distribution system below 3%.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

So. You want to get away from the free enterprise system.  Free
enterprise is when the _people_ decide what products or services are
needed, wanted, desired and ultimately produced.  If the _people_ did
not what SUV's, pickups and sedans, they would not buy them and the
automakers would not build them.  If the _people_ demonstrate (by
using their dollars) they want hybrids most, then the automakers would
build them.

What you are proposing is that the government decide what products the
automakers make and what products are available to the _people_. I
don't think your vision for the future is desired or wanted by any
free enterprise advocate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'n not answering for Bret, just posing a question:

What part of "free enterprise" is screwing up your own business and
then asking the government to give you tax dollars and let you do it
again any way you like??

If you walk down the street handing out free money, sure I'll have
some.  It's called "benefit with no down side", better known as
"cake and eat it too".  

The same part of "free enterprise" that brought you Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. It's a great job, if you can get it.

Well voters _can_ get it.

That's why popular government is so popular.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so
a few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.

Bret Cahill

Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is
to stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill

And the storage problem...

I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)

They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs about
60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure that can
be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..

Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.

Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies
must be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will
be.

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000 lb
gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important as
the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by batteries or
road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas then
the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be insanely
profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

And this does not require a total destruction of the American
way of life or the centralized big brother crap associated with
everything needed for the electric car.  I am all for hybrids as a way to
move toward nuclear power.  But make no mistake.  That is where you are
going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.


Bret Cahill

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:25:32 -0600, John J wrote:

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the
standard of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have
much higher taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per
capita), and they are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their
standard of living.

Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.

Very good point indeed. The Iraq occupation according to Greenspan was
about oil. Yet the cost of that insanity is not seen in the price of
fuel. I am of the opinion that most of the US military budget is
imperialism. And that would not be necessary if we were energy
independent within our own hemisphere.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Michael Coburn]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:58:29 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

rc wrote:

The automakers are victims of circumstances.

You mean US automakers. And the failure to innovate isn't
'circumstances'.

Right. If the USA had decent government run pension and health care
systems like the civilized countries then the "Big Three" would not have
a "Legacy Cost" problem and manufacturing of automobiles would be an
American mainstay.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Rob Dekker]

"Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message news:gk0j759j4c@news3.newsguy.com...

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 12:58:42 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:

..................
I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000
lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure
is small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important
as the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by
batteries or road electrification.

Bret Cahill

If there is going to be a 1000% increase in the price of oil and gas
then the output of current algae based biofuel methods would be
insanely profitable.

Has anyone seen any real evidence of anything close to 2,000 gallons/
acre year?

That's $20,000/acre when berry crops fetch more than that.

A 1000 percent increase above $2 per gallon (that will be the price by
summer) would be $200 per gallon or $400K per acre if 2000 gal/acre.

1000 percent would be 10X, which would be $20/gallon. or $40K per acre per year for a 2000 gal/acre algae farm.

Of course, price of oil would not go to $20/gallon (let alone $200/gallon), since this would bring the economy to a grinding stop,
killing consumption, thus reducing the price again.
That's good, since a 10X increase in the price of palm oil would surely mean that end of our remaining rain forests and any
remaining natural habitat for that matter (see notes below on the food-fuel link).

That claim of 2000 gal/acre is less than half the current projected yield
of competent boireactors. So if we go with your 1000% claim then I want
very much to "invest" in bioreactors surrounding the Sea of Cortes

You forget one (free market) effect : bottom food prices and fuel prices are linked (now that we grow corn for ethanol and palm oil
for biodiesel).

If the price of oil goes up 10X, then also palm oil and soybean oil would go up 10X. And Ethanol would go up 10X, which would cause
the price of corn to go up 10X as well.
In fact, ALL agricultural products to go up about 10X in price, since bottom price of food is linked to the price of oil (since we
can convert food to oil).

So the yield per acre of food farming will go up 10X, which then means that algae farming has to compete against 10X farm yields.
So farmers can then get 10X for growing berries (or tomatoes in a 'green house' or so). Why would they switch to algae in a
boireactor ?

And this does not require a total destruction of the American way of
life or the centralized big brother crap associated with everything
needed for the electric car. I am all for hybrids as a way to move
toward nuclear power. But make no mistake. That is where you are
going.

Not necessarily.

Energy storage is easier at installations than in vehicle batteries.

But if worse comes to worse it's nice to know there's a plan B.

But from whence does this energy come? I am talking about the energy
that must get put INTO the grid (if cars are electric). I am not
suggesting that algae be used for that at all. That would be stone cold
stupid. But I do not see the really big problem as the batteries. I see
it as the amount of power that must be supplied by the grid and ask where
the hell that power will come from.

Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biomass burning, you name it. Whatever works in an area.
Also, don't forget the power (and low cost) of increased energy efficiency in all areas of energy use.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

 

[Les Cargill]

Bret Cahill wrote:

The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
snip

I'm not sure how Big Oil continues to distract everyone from the 8000
lb gorilla but everything including vehicle cost and infrastructure is
small spuds when compared to the impending 1000+% increase in fuel
prices.

Bring them. We need that, if it is indeed to pass.

Hybrids were introduced for reasons that won't be nearly as important
as the fact that they can be powered from the grid, either by
batteries or road electrification.

They're uneconomic and ... by extension, a rather suspect choice. The
car won't last as long as low oil prices will.

What was the deal on South Park - the Pious, that runs on
your smug sense of self-satisfaction? Yet another
lifestyle accessory for people with no sense of self...

Bret Cahill

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

tg wrote:

On Jan 6, 3:01 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Rob Dekker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com
wrote:
Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas fired
industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.
It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a few
points increase is a farce when compared to the impending 1000+%
increase in fuel prices.
The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of major
highways.
Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to go
completely hybrid.
Bret Cahill
Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per
unit mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.
John
Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.
John
The only problem is the distribution network.
--
Les Cargill
And the storage problem...
I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it
today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat gas)
They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine
runs about 60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60%
is a figure that can be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines
approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a significant
portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.
Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite
cheap. No doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems
to be at least a potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..
Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.
Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn
something, cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested
already in ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then
lots of technologies must be considered.



The problem is that there is too much vested interest at all levels of
the ICE-based auto model, and hybrids now don't depart far enough---
they are basically bad electric cars.

I am saying that all the vested interest is a good thing, because
people can drive for $0.48 per mile.

The wheelmotor platform, which is the optimal implementation of the
electric car, would destroy the whole auto economy, but it isn't going
to happen even in 20 years without some kind of intervention.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/2060724.006/pml-builds-640hp-electric-mini

Neat! I like the heck outta that.

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be anything else
since car companies will never build one voluntarily.

Write Bill Gates. Tell him there are worlds yet to conquer....

-tg

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher
fuel price. It's the only way to inform people of what they
right decision will be.

Rob
--
Les Cargill

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgfurg@yahoo.com
wrote:

Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.
Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.


The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.

John

It proves no such thing. It mainly proves
there are significant barriers to entry.

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

tg wrote:

On Jan 6, 11:42 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0500, "Jack" <furgfurgf...@yahoo.com
wrote:



Yes, I know it is a concept car---but it will never be
anything else since car companies will never build one
voluntarily.
Surely there's a fortune in it for anyone who can produce them.
The fact that nobody is producing them proves that there's no fortune.


Uh huh. And an unregulated financial market poses no risks to the
economy.

sigh....

-tg



John

Here's $700B. Now keep quiet

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

Michael Coburn wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:01:18 -0500, Les Cargill wrote:

Rob Dekker wrote:
"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4962f25f$0$4952$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...
John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:03:37 -0500, Les Cargill <lcargill@cfl.rr.com
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:35:25 -0500, Les Cargill
lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

Bret Cahill wrote:
The most efficient power plant on the planet is a natural gas
fired industrial gas turbine made by GE -- 60% efficient.

It's down hill from there as far as efficiency is concerned so a
few points increase is a farce when compared to the impending
1000+% increase in fuel prices.

The only way to go is hybrid electric with electrification of
major highways.

Do _not_ give automakers any bailout money unless they agree to
go completely hybrid.


Bret Cahill


Hybrids are uneconomic. You'll push them even faster into
bankruptcy. Liquid fossil fuels win on *weight*. Energy per unit
mass is the lowest.
Hydrogen is the best fuel, and the best way to store hydrogen is to
stick it to carbon.

John

Absolutely.
I suppose LNG is the ideal low-carbon fuel, assuming you have
something against carbon. CH(2n+2) works best when C=1.

John

The only problem is the distribution network.

--
Les Cargill
And the storage problem...
I'd think it tractable. After all, we use it today for home use.

And the efficiency issue (ICEs still run with low efficiency on nat
gas)
They do about as well as ICEs will ever do. A diesel turbine runs about
60% - not bad as these things go. I'm not sure 60% is a figure that can
be sneezed at easily. Gas turbines approach the same 60% figure.

And the supply issue (we don't have enough nat gas to supply a
significant portion of the vehicle fleet on nat gas.

Not familiar with this as a problem. Gas is - today - quite cheap. No
doubt the demand would shift radically. It seems to be at least a
potential supplemental source.

And the cost of conversion.
And then you still can't do regenerative braking..


Not sure that's all that important...

Maybe hybrids are not that bad after all.


Hybrids provide false efficiencies. You still have to burn something,
cut across the power grid, charge a fuel cell/battery...

If dollar-efficiency per mile is halved, then why wouldn't simply
enforcing $4 per gallon gasoline be simpler and even less painful?

And hybrids cost as much as *ten(ish) times* as much per mile.... a
Scion xB? $0.48 versus a Prius at $3.25...

There's just one whale of a lot of infrastructure invested already in
ICEs. Now, if you're timeline's 20 years, then lots of technologies must
be considered.

But I don't think you can substitute any action for higher fuel price.
It's the only way to inform people of what they right decision will be.

Yup. You place a large excise tax on oil

That may not work.... demand is rising in Europe....

and redistribute the proceeds
as a an egalitarian citizen's dividend or a bottom weighted quarterly
"stimulus" like the one we had in 2008. You let the market decide what
technologies and innovations are best within this macro level tax and
stimulus operation.

Never happen....

--
Les Cargill

 

[Les Cargill]

Michael Coburn wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:25:32 -0600, John J wrote:

"Rob Dekker" <rob@verific.com> wrote in message
news:eLP8l.10307$as4.525@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...

[...]
And if anyone thinks ($1/gallon gas tax) that this would hurt the
standard of living in the US, then remember that in Europe they have
much higher taxes on fuels, consequently use half the energy (per
capita), and they are doing just fine (in many ways better) with their
standard of living.
Americans pay a hidden tax that creates the illusion of cheap gas - the
federal taxes necessary to protect gas resources. In Europe they pay the
full bill at the pump, and then some for infrastructure support.

Very good point indeed. The Iraq occupation according to Greenspan was
about oil.

About *the security of the supply of oil*. Vastly different thing....
and also, a completely global positive externality - one reason
all the Bush-bashing rings more and more hollow.

Yet the cost of that insanity is not seen in the price of
fuel. I am of the opinion that most of the US military budget is
imperialism. And that would not be necessary if we were energy
independent within our own hemisphere.

Don't hold your breath.

--
Les Cargill